• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

My Son Was Arrested in North Las Vegas

Lostlittlerobot

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
260
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
please reply back asap. I have tues/july 26th off. I'd love to come down to courthouse. Can i wear my empty holster? Help me with all the ammo I may need.

I am a friend of Mr bolton and Ms gonzalez.

I am a character witness of mr bolten and ms gonzalez?

Mr dont tread on me. I'm sure you'll be there. Help me help you guys. armed with nothing more than wanting to help other law abiding citizens who gradually follow these posts...pm me...arm me...i'll be there. 1pm is an AWESOME time especially! hah i dont wake up early.

pm me guys
 

Lostlittlerobot

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
260
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
They forced you to a tb test? did they give you and your son a ppd test? its a subdural injection that reacts to the teburculosis disease within a few days.

Its a shot...an injection...to me that SCREAMS invasive. Don't get me wong, I know the OTHER end of forceful or threatening treatment. I myself...2 days ago, condeced to a federal agents demands, without warrent, under durress....(pm me for more!). In jail; that's gotta be amped up 10 fold. I know i was sweating **** stains in my yah well this forum is clean....so i'm just curious did they stick you with needles...I had to take a ppd recently, i volunteered...wanna know how it went for you two!
 

TigerLily

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
141
Location
Polygammyville, Utah
Sorry to those who couldn't find us.

My son did a super kick-ass job. The judge said he would render his judgement in two weeks. He appears to realize that the NLV anti-gun ordinance is bigger than just my little ol' son. The judge was reasonable - much better than the retired judge/cop. I was very impressed with him - despite the fact that he found me guilty and fined $1000. It's always nice to get a glass of wine and a little lube before bending over. But seriously, he gave me an opportunity to continue to learn through the appeal process - and thankfully, my brilliant husband was there to advise me of where I went wrong. The armchair quarterbacking is appreciated cause it's meant to grow.

My son's trial lasted 3 hours and mine lasted one. The good news about my conviction is that I get to do a do-over in District Court. Hopefully I learned a few things - and it was a great experience for my two helmet trials that I have scheduled coming up soon. And I learned who my strongest witnesses were.

Bottom line, I think the Judge is one who believes police officer safety trumps people's rights (which is why he convicted me.) The prosecution did a better job of articulating the "danger" I posed by getting too close to the scene of the crime (100 feet). It didn't matter that I was unarmed and that my only "crime" was my refusal to "obey" an unlawful order. NRS 171.123 was cited as what I had violated by refusing to give my name.

NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected of criminal behavior or of violating conditions of parole or probation: Limitations.

1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.


My "crime" was my refusal to obey there "lawful" order. I argued that being told to stay 100 yards away was NOT a lawful order, therefore there was no legal reason by which I was required to give them my name.

I'll keep you posted as to my son's verdict regarding his 2A.

In the prosecutor's closing arguments, she (an African American) said that police officers have the RIGHT to order citizens to do things to keep them (the cops) safe, and that we need to (she used the word...) OBEY their commands.

At the top of my own argument (having inadvertently disregarded the fact that the prosecutor was African American) I said, "I'm sure there are those at one time who believed Rosa Park should have shut up and obeyed her masters to sit at the back of the bus.

In her follow-up, she was quick to say that she was a descendent of Rosa Parks - but she was gracious not to take offense at my analogy. Instead, she called me an anarchist. LOL!

This was a tremendous experience - and I'm looking forward to meeting with my accuser again in the appeal :)

What a rush!
 

Vegassteve

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
1,763
Location
Las Vegas NV, ,
In her follow-up, she was quick to say that she was a descendent of Rosa Parks - but she was gracious not to take offense at my analogy. Instead, she called me an anarchist. LOL!

Oh please what is her name? This would be all too easy to look up.Which we should do. Because if she lied then she needs to lose her job.
 

TigerLily

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
141
Location
Polygammyville, Utah
Oh please what is her name? This would be all too easy to look up.Which we should do. Because if she lied then she needs to lose her job.


According to the docket info that I just looked up, it appears it's DOCKTER ESQ, SHARON Y - DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY:

I did a google search and couldn't come up with a pic, but she appears to be involved in an African American charity-type project.

I don't know how a closing statement comment would be deemed perjury.

Here's the link to the details: https://www.cityofnorthlasvegas.com/pa/ep.urd/pamw2000.docket_lst?617683

I'm glad I took a look at my docket list. My hubby said my fine was $1000 - but I only heard the judge say $500 plus court costs and the online data seems to support the $500 - so hopefully that's correct.
 

TigerLily

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
141
Location
Polygammyville, Utah
+ 1,000,000
That would be a serious offense for an officer of the court to do that. Does it reach the level of perjury?

I don't see how it would reach the level of perjury, since closing statements are pretty much subjective opinions and she didn't swear an oath. She is, however bound by lawyer ethics. I'd have to look it up.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
I've searched and while I can't find anything (scholarly) that says she "had no children", I also can't find anything that says she did. Kind of like the law, kind of hard to find something that doesn't exist.

So the gal lied, as an officer of the court, in court. That should at least draw a complaint to the bar assoc.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
I've searched and while I can't find anything (scholarly) that says she "had no children", I also can't find anything that says she did.
I don't know what your standard for "scholarly" is, but every biography that mentions children says she had none. She had a number of nieces and nephews via her only sibling (a sister), but no children of her own, either by birth or adoption.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
Unless OC is denied by statute, there is no reason to have statute permitting OC.

Laws deny activities. If there is no law making something illegal, that something is legal.
NO people in Mississippi should find themselves in "hot water" for not breaking laws.

And, PLEASE do not ask this same question in multiple Nevada threads as you have done in the Mississippi forums. You have received many good, accurate, and useful responses to this question already. Your single-minded "need" to see a statute "allowing" open carry simply misses the point.



or just go read the statutes for yourself!!!! lol
 

TigerLily

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
141
Location
Polygammyville, Utah
The verdict...

The judge called for a conference to schedule points and authorities briefings.

My son said he could have his ready in a week. The prosecutor whined that he needed 30 days.

Deadline for the briefs was Oct 8th. On the 6th the prosecution submitted theirs'. Basically what they did was to take the Haines case and substitute my son's name onto it. My son submitted his brief on the 7th. When the prosecution saw my son's brief, the prosecution requested that the gun charge be dismissed.

Today the verdict was posted online. In a nutshell:

Gun charge - dismissed (son asked for an injunction against the City of NLV against the gun ordinance - but of course this was not addressed)
Having more than one valid drivers license - NOT GUILTY
Tinted windows - GUILTY (there is a note that he served three days jail for that charge - but my son and I each served 24 hours.)
Aggressive Driving - GUILTY - $250 fine (plus fees.)

He'll be taking two fives and two ones to appeal to District Court.

My own conviction for "obstruction" is being appealed and my arraignment will be in Judge Mosley's Court on 9/22.

p.s. How is it even possible that the prosecutor can be allowed to dismiss a charge after it "rested?" Shouldn't the judge have found him NOT GUILTY of the gun charge?
 

The Big Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Waco, TX
The judge called for a conference to schedule points and authorities briefings.

My son said he could have his ready in a week. The prosecutor whined that he needed 30 days.

Deadline for the briefs was Oct 8th. On the 6th the prosecution submitted theirs'. Basically what they did was to take the Haines case and substitute my son's name onto it. My son submitted his brief on the 7th. When the prosecution saw my son's brief, the prosecution requested that the gun charge be dismissed.

Today the verdict was posted online. In a nutshell:

Gun charge - dismissed (son asked for an injunction against the City of NLV against the gun ordinance - but of course this was not addressed)
Having more than one valid drivers license - NOT GUILTY
Tinted windows - GUILTY (there is a note that he served three days jail for that charge - but my son and I each served 24 hours.)
Aggressive Driving - GUILTY - $250 fine (plus fees.)

He'll be taking two fives and two ones to appeal to District Court.

My own conviction for "obstruction" is being appealed and my arraignment will be in Judge Mosley's Court on 9/22.

p.s. How is it even possible that the prosecutor can be allowed to dismiss a charge after it "rested?" Shouldn't the judge have found him NOT GUILTY of the gun charge?



As far as the gun charge goes, in that it was a clear violation of the N. Las Vegas ordinance, the fact that they dropped it shows they know they are on very shaky ground under state law. I'm not sure that a NG ruling would have helped except to be able to appeal it. The judge in making a determination that the law was not valid, would have had to dismiss the charge as I don't think you can be found NG of something that is not valid. The choice for them was either take a chance that the judge would rule the ordinance invalid, have the judge rule guilty and then loose on appeal, or do what they did in dropping it and living to fight another day. Just my opinion. They sure seem to want to keep it on the books regardless of being able to enforce it with those who know of preemption. They are just hoping to use it against the unsuspecting. A ruling by a judge against the city ordinance might have consequences against County ordinances as well and they don't want to open that can of worms either.

Perhaps at some point you can post your son's brief so we can all see what scared them, in that I'm sure someone else is going to run afoul of N.L.V. in the future.

Good luck on your appeals.

TBG
 

TigerLily

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
141
Location
Polygammyville, Utah
The brief that "scared" NLV prosecutors to ask the judge to dismiss the gun ordinance

As an aside, the brief that the prosecution filed was pitiful !! It was as if they did a "search" of Hanes and replaced it with "Bolton." My son, Carlos Bolton, does not even live in NLV nor does he have the same profession as Hanes. I'll see about pdf-ing the prosecution's dismal brief. No wonder NLV is bankrupt. The incompetency and corruption has caught up with them.

The tinted window charge is ******** because the city NEVER BOTHERED TO TEST the tint. And the aggressive charge is also bogus based on the officers assertion that he weaved in and out abruptly in heavy traffic speeding 40 mph in a 35 mph zone (no radar detection - just his eyeballs) in a dangerous manner and that he did this all within 100 feet. At 40 mph traveling 100 feet is less than 2 seconds. Not even Evil Kinevil can do that. My son saw the cop behind him and he was on his best driving behavior. This cop was simply pissed because my son exercised POLITELY his 4th amendment right to not roll down the back window all the way. He had some tires stacked up in the back seat and there was no reason for that cowboy cop to fear for his safety until my son told him WHILE HE HAD HIS HANDS ON HIS STEERING WHEEL 10 AND 2 - that he was open carrying. My son didn't want the cop to shoot him when he reached for his wallet that was next to his gun. The cop freaked out, yelled, and called his buddies to violate the **** out of him and ****** up his arm that was healing from major surgery due to an accident in which the surgeon saved it from amputation. But I digress - sorry, as a mom that had to watch my kid get violated in the U.S.A. - a country that I and my husband both served - I'm really, really, really pissed!

Here's a cut and paste of the brief submitted by my son:


DEFENDANT’S BRIEF

I. DANGEROUS/DEADLY WEAPON IN VEHICLE. With respect to the pending charge against me of a violation of North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.080 – possession of a dangerous or deadly weapon in vehicle - the following is offered for consideration.

A. North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.040 defines “dangerous or deadly weapons.” That ordinance sets forth and describes a number of items that are considered “dangerous or deadly weapons” by the City of North Las Vegas, a firearm being one. However, the ordinance excludes certain firearms from its definition. It says: “The term ‘dangerous or deadly weapons’ includes… any firearm other than (emphasis added) (a) one carried pursuant to a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority, or (b) an ordinary rifle or shotgun lawfully carried for purposes of hunting or other lawful sport.” So, the ordinance excludes from its definition of “dangerous or deadly weapons,” a firearm carried “pursuant to a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority.” The provision of that exclusion within the ordinance creates a safe harbor for those who have valid permission to carry a firearm concealed (emphasis added) on their person as well as (emphasis added) those who have valid permission to carry a firearm openly (emphasis added) on their person. It, in effect, eliminates any liability under the law with respect to North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.080 – possession of dangerous or deadly weapon in a vehicle - for those two categories of lawful firearm possession.

B. Did I have “a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority?” In a word, yes. The Nevada State Constitution, Article 1, Section 11, Subsection 1, permits (emphasis added) its citizens “to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.” Does not Article 1, Section 11, Subsection 1 of the Nevada Constitution afford the right, or in effect, permit (emphasis added) its citizens to “bear arms,” even those driving their vehicles within the confines of the city limits of the City of North Las Vegas; and is not the State Constitution the supreme law of the state and therefore inherently a “duly authorized government authority?” Openly carrying (emphasis added) a handgun in a vehicle in Nevada is lawful (emphasis added). Openly carrying a registered handgun (emphasis added) in a vehicle in Clark County is lawful (emphasis added). Openly carrying a registered handgun (emphasis added) in a vehicle in North Las Vegas is lawful as well, because it is done with “a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority,” and in doing such the handgun so carried falls under the exclusion of the City’s own ordinance that defines what a “dangerous or deadly weapon” is NOT.

C. It seems clear that by the City’s own codified definitions and specific exclusions as to what a “dangerous or deadly weapon” is termed to be and not to be; that a handgun lawfully and openly carried on one’s person within a vehicle per the permission afforded by the Nevada State Constitution, is by definition NOT a “dangerous or deadly weapon.” Therefore in the instant case, there was no violation of North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.080, and I was unlawfully arrested and jailed without probable cause.

D. As an aside, but still of pertinence and importance, I submit that had I been lawfully concealed carrying (emphasis added) my handgun, I would not have been arrested, jailed and prosecuted for suspected violation of the city ordinance. Why? Because the lawful concealed carrying of a handgun falls within the City’s definition exception as to what a “dangerous or deadly” weapon is and is NOT. I would further submit that I was lawfully open carrying (emphasis added) my handgun and there should have been no arrest, incarceration, and prosecution. Why? Because a citizen’s legal and lawful open carrying of a handgun pursuant to the permission granted in Article 1, Section 11, Subsection 1 of the Nevada Constitution ALSO falls within the City’s definition exception as to what a “dangerous or deadly” weapon is NOT. One might then ask oneself, what is the purpose of the City’s ban on firearms in vehicles? Simply stated, I would suggest that it is to deter individuals from having in their possession and in their vehicle firearms that are illegally possessed for intended unlawful purpose(s). The circumstances surrounding my case do not fit into such category at all. I was lawfully, legally, constitutionally, appropriately, permittedly, ad nauseum, openly carrying my handgun on my person while I was driving my vehicle within the city limits of North Las Vegas. There is no evidence suggesting that I had the handgun for any unlawful purpose. Such circumstance certainly falls within the City’s definition exception as to what a “dangerous or deadly” weapon is and is NOT.

E. So, bottom line here is that a constitutional argument, if one were to be made, isn’t that North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.080 is unconstitutional or contrary to appropriate Nevada Revised Statute(s), only that the City’s apparent misguided and obvious arbitrary enforcement and prosecution of the ordinance in my case, and perhaps others(see footnote), calls into question the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For you see, I, in the circumstances of the case – lawfully open carrying a handgun on my person in a vehicle with the requisite permission and authority of the Nevada State Constitution - should be afforded the “safe harbor” provided by the exclusion definition of the city ordinance which defines “dangerous or deadly weapon,” just as is an individual who is permitted and authorized to lawfully conceal carry a handgun in a vehicle. Anything less would, in my mind, be a misapplication of the ordinance and certainly fly in the face of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

II. REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Although this brief may not be the appropriate venue for such a request, I hereby plead with the court, that should the court determine that the City of North Las Vegas has in fact been arbitrary in their enforcement and prosecution of North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.080 (and I submit that this is the case), it is requested that the court issue injunctive relief ordering the City of North Las Vegas to immediately and indefinitely cease and desist such arbitrary enforcement and prosecution of said ordinance. North Las Vegas’ continued arbitrary enforcement and prosecution of this ordinance will only continue to result in the misguided arrest, jail, and prosecution of otherwise law abiding citizens.

(footnote:) Michael Davidson, former chief criminal attorney for the City of North Las Vegas, was quoted in an April 7, 2010 Las Vegas Sun article(EXHIBIT A)as follows: “The intent (of North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.080) was to go after gangbangers, not mom and pop in the RV.”)


Dated this 7th day of September, 2011


___________________________________

Carlos Augustine Bolton

I am sorely disappointed with the NRA for not caring about this case because my son was open carrying. It appears the NRA cares only about people who have permission slips to conceal. And I think that's bull! An NRA rep was present at my son's arraignment and was later dumbfounded that this was an open carry issue. We never saw her again. Too bad - looks like they did a really ****** job with the Hanes case so maybe their lack of involvement served to my son's advantage.

p.s. NO CONTRABAND WAS FOUND IN MY SON'S LEXUS AND HIS CAR WAS IMPOUNDED BECAUSE OF THE ORDINANCE.
 
Last edited:

MR Redenck

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
596
Location
West Texas
Dang Tigerlily that sucks! I have only been to LV once in my life and the only negative thing I encountered was a ******* cop.
Seems like the LVPD is pretty popular now days for acting like Natzies.
I hope you get yourself and your son a lawyer and sue their butts off!
 

TigerLily

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
141
Location
Polygammyville, Utah
So I take it the gun charge dismissed? Where does he stand on any other charges?

Gun charge was prosecuted, judge asked for points and authorities briefings on the gun charge for both parties; when the prosecution read my son's points and authorities this entry was made into the online case status:

09/08/2011 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE Attorney: GOSWAMI ESQ, DEEP (0010884)

Then the judge ruled about the gun charge:

09/13/2011 CHARGE DISMISSED Charge #2: DANGEROUS/DEADLY WEAPON IN VEHICLE

As for the other charges:

Tinted windows: (Served 3 days) - but in actuality he only served 24 hours - and zero testing was done on the windows to see if they complied.
Multiple Drivers Licenses: NOT GUILTY
Aggressive Driving: GUILTY - fined $250.

Here's the "kicker." He was pulled over for tinted windows but later the cop trumped up the aggressive driving in my view to support the arrest. The cop stated he weaved in and out of heavy traffic several times speeding 5 miles over the limit in an abrupt and unsafe manner. It is impossible to do all that in 100 feet. Traveling 100 feet at 40 mph is less than 2 seconds. He was full of sh!t

Son is appealing the two charges - hopefully it will go before Judge Mosely's court because I was just there last Thursday and he's already pissed at the City of NLV and Boulder City (both have courts of nonrecord) for their "propensity to write tickets." (But that's another story for a motorcycle rights blog.)
 
Top